Standing Committee A

[Mr. Frank Cook in the Chair]

European Parliament (Representation) Bill

Clause 21 - European Parliamentary election regulations

William Cash: I beg to move amendment No. 65, in
clause 21, page 10, line 34, after '(4A)', insert 
 'In respect only of Part 2 of the European Parliament (Representation) Act 2003 and subject to section 11 of that Act'.
 The clause prescribes the arrangements for European parliamentary election regulations. The amendment would insert the provisions into proposed new subsection (4A), and raises issues to which I have already had cause to refer. It is analogous to the regulation-making powers and other such provisions in clause 16. Proposed new subsection (4A) inserts the power to make regulations into the European Parliamentary Elections Act 2002. It states: 
''Without prejudice to the generality of the power under which they are made, regulations under this Act may:
(a) make different provision for different electoral regions and, in particular, for the part of the combined region which is in England and Wales and for Gibraltar;
(b) confer jurisdiction relating to any matter connected with the election of MEPs in the combined region on any court in the United Kingdom''.
 It thus confers jurisdiction in relation to the United Kingdom, but it continues: 
''(c) exclude any such matter from the jurisdiction of any court in Gibraltar''.
 It goes without saying that the Gibraltarians will not be remotely pleased about that. We return to the old colonial, imperialistic attitude, which I find astonishing. I maintain the hope that, in the final stages of the Bill, we will have a proper explanation of why the Government treat the Gibraltarians in this fashion. 
 We must also bear in mind that the Gibraltarians were not shown a copy of the Bill before it was published. Courts in Gibraltar deal daily with all sorts of matters that relate to the Bill, yet they are regarded as inadequate, even suspect, if one takes an extreme view, and incapable of dealing with matters of this sort. 
Mr. David Heath (Somerton and Frome) rose—

William Cash: I find that the discussions between the two of us sometimes elucidate—

Frank Cook: Order. Discussions should be through the Chair.

David Heath: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash). I hoped that he was not straying into the context of the next group, where I had hoped to say something on the court in Gibraltar.

Frank Cook: Order. The hon. Gentleman can rely on the Chair to protect his interests.

David Heath: I am most grateful.

William Cash: Amendment No. 65 is intended to ensure the right kind of calibration in the drafting.

Yvette Cooper: I shall confine my remarks to amendment No. 65 and will make some important points on the courts on the next group of amendments. The amendment attempts to limit the use that can be made of the regulations under the European Parliamentary Elections Act 2002 to matters connected with the establishment of the combined region. Clause 21 amends the regulation-making powers in the Act, which apply the detail of electoral law to the European parliamentary elections. As variations will be made to take account of the inclusion of Gibraltar in the elections in the future, the regulation-making power under the Act needs to cater for that.
 The amendment is unnecessary because what it seeks is already achieved by the clause and the way in which it will be interpreted. Because clause 21 is inserted by the Bill into the European Parliamentary Elections Act, it is clear that its purpose is to give effect to the Bill's purposes—to establish a combined region for European parliamentary elections to be held as far as possible under the same rules as presently apply in the UK. 
 Furthermore, section 7 of the 2002 Act—the regulation-making power in question—is already limited in scope; for example, it could not be used to change the voting system. The clause is already circumscribed in the way that the amendment seeks. It could be interpreted only in the Bill's context and could not be used to give wider powers. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Stone to withdraw his amendment. 
 Before I sit down I want to clarify a point he made. He said that the Government of Gibraltar were not shown a copy of the draft Bill before it was published. They were indeed shown a copy before it was published as soon as a complete readable version was available and they also had previous discussions with officials setting out the Bill's approach.

William Cash: I am happy to withdraw the amendment. On the last point, we have already made the point that there was inadequate discussion. That matter will no doubt rumble on. The question of the point at which Bills are seen is highly relevant. The Minister said that the Bill was seen was in readable form, but the question is whether it was in comprehensible form, which is a different point. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

William Cash: I beg to move amendment No. 66, in
clause 21, page 10, line 41, after 'Kingdom', insert 'and Gibraltar'.

Frank Cook: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No.8, in 
clause 21, page 10, line 41, leave out from 'Kingdom' to end of line 43.
 Amendment No.67, in 
clause 21, page 10, line 42, leave out paragraph (c).

William Cash: I apologise for having traversed this matter in our previous debate. I accidentally picked up my notes on the points that we will discuss now. I do not think that I need to repeat what I said, other than to say that I find one provision astonishing. It is suggested that jurisdiction would be conferred on a court in the United Kingdom in respect of the matters under which regulations could be made
''relating to any matter connected with the election of MEPs''.
 That requires explanation in itself. I am not sure what jurisdiction one would expect to be conferred, but the Minister will no doubt elucidate. However, if it is going to be conferred on a court in the United Kingdom, it should also be conferred on a court in Gibraltar, as my amendment No. 66 says. To make the situation dramatically worse, the idea that any such matter should be excluded from the jurisdiction of any court in Gibraltar must be construed as insulting on any understanding of the situation. It is absurd and unbelievable that courts that handle matters daily are deemed to be incompetent or presumed suspect in adjudicating on matters that could arise under the regulations. I will be interested to hear the views of the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), because I think that the situation is appalling.

David Heath: I, too, have an amendment in the group—amendment No. 8. I must confess that although my amendment is along the same lines as that of the hon. Member for Stone, it does not include the words ''and Gibraltar'', which should be added. My amendment alone would be silent on the jurisdiction of the court of Gibraltar, so between us we have a viable amendment.
 It seems extraordinary that the court of Gibraltar is excluded. I suspect that it is not because the Minister feels that the court is incompetent, but there must be reasons, which have yet to be elucidated. I want to argue a strong presumption in favour of the court of Gibraltar being given the jurisdiction. A case would be brought before a court in Gibraltar, rather than one in the UK, only when a citizen of Gibraltar, either as a candidate or other participant in a European election, or a political party is suspected to have transgressed the regulations. In such cases, it would surely be inappropriate to require that hearing, with witnesses and legal representatives, to be taken from Gibraltar to a court in the United Kingdom. It would not make sense and instead offend against any concept of justice locally administered. 
 We are left with the question of why the court of Gibraltar should be excluded. I confess my ignorance in the area, so I would be grateful if the Minister explained the relationship between the jurisdiction in Gibraltar and the Lord Chancellor. I may be wrong, but I believe that that the House of Lords acts an as appellant court for the court of Gibraltar and therefore forms part of the overall British legal jurisdiction. However, it has separate characteristics to the court in Gibraltar. I understand that the judges to the court of Gibraltar are appointed at intervals by 
 the Governor and therefore by the Crown, rather than by any other process. Will the Minister explain why the Gibraltar court should be excluded and, most importantly, why it should be held uniquely that any possible breach of regulation and law under electoral law should not be considered by a court in the vicinity, neighbourhood and same end of the continent where the offence takes place and the defendant is likely to be resident?

Yvette Cooper: I shall set out the intention and then return to the wording of the clause and to the amendments. Our intention, which has been discussed with the Government of Gibraltar, is that matters that would be dealt with by the electoral court or the High Court were the problem to arise in the UK, should continue to be dealt with in the electoral court or High Court if the problem arose with regard to Gibraltar. Matters that would be dealt with in the magistrates courts, county courts or Crown courts, were the problem to arise in the UK, should be dealt with in the Gibraltar courts. The intention is not to exclude all matters from the jurisdiction of any court in Gibraltar, but to ensure that the Gibraltar courts would deal with all the matters that might normally be dealt with by the magistrates courts, county courts or Crown courts in the UK.
 Clearly the Gibraltar courts should be able to deal with offences that have a specific impact in Gibraltar that might already have been dealt with locally where they arise in the UK. However, some matters might go to the heart of an election result, for example, that would be dealt with in the UK by the electoral court. The impact on the election result as a whole would affect the combined region and not only Gibraltar. Therefore the rest of the region would have a stake, and it is therefore seen as appropriate to make such cases part of the jurisdiction of the electoral court and the High Court rather than that of the Gibraltar courts. 
 The sort of cases that arise in the magistrates courts and would therefore be dealt with in Gibraltar are election offences such as tampering with nomination papers or personation; in the county courts, appeals about registration; and in the electoral court, election petitions relating to the results of an election. That is the reason for the distinction between the two jurisdictions. 
 The powers set out in clause 21 would give effect to that intention in the regulations. Those regulations would still need to come back before Parliament. The clause is drafted broadly without specifying what should go to which court at this stage so that the full ramifications may be explored with the Government of Gibraltar. I am sympathetic to considering whether the situation could be clarified further. I understand that the clause does not make our intention clear. I am trying to set that out clearly in Committee so that it is on the record.

David Heath: The Minister is being extremely helpful. I am glad that she is considering the issue further. Does she agree that it is hard to see how even minor offences—I mean lesser offences; they are quite important—under regulation would be excluded from the court of Gibraltar's jurisdiction under the
 clause? I am not sure how the clause makes that distinction. It seems simply to prevent any offence from being tried by a court in Gibraltar, provided that the offence is committed under the regulation that is part of the secondary legislation to be introduced.

Yvette Cooper: The clause simply gives the power to exclude matters from the jurisdiction of any court in Gibraltar under the regulations. It does not say that all matters will be excluded; that is certainly not the intention. It gives the power to exclude matters through regulations, so that they can be further explored before the regulations are finally drawn up and the regulations can set out exactly what will form part of the jurisdiction of which court. That would be done as part of the European parliamentary election regulations, and so would undergo the affirmative resolution procedure. The matter would return to the House for its consideration. It is purely a question of having the flexibility fully to explore the ramifications before setting out what should go to which court.

William Cash: I, too, find the Minister's explanation useful in throwing light on how the Government want the power to operate. I accept that it would be a power, and that the word is ''may'', not ''shall''. However, a problem arises in relation to the words
''relating to any matter connected with'',
 which is extremely broad. There would be a conferral of jurisdiction if we were to insert the word ''Gibraltar'' where the clause says 
''confer jurisdiction relating to any matter connected with the election of MEPs''.
 The clause continues: 
''and . . . exclude any such matter'':
 in other words, any such matter connected with the election of MEPs. 
 I find the Minister's remarks helpful. The Department clearly has some sort of blueprint that lists several problems that could arise as well as several matters that the Government believe they should exclude from the courts of Gibraltar where, for example, matters in question would affect the combined region as a whole, without infringing on any of the rights of the citizens of Gibraltar. The Minister used the phrase, ''At the heart of the matter'', or words to that effect. It may be that some sensible discussion can emerge from this exchange, but I sense that there is somewhere lists of things that would be included as well as excluded. The question is whether that blueprint bears examination when it is applied to the criteria that we have been discussing in relation to the rights of the people of Gibraltar and their courts. Sight of that blueprint would probably help to ease the discussions. 
 The Committee has grown in my opinion since I started out on this venture. As I have said repeatedly, I am increasingly conscious of the fact that I speak for individuals in Gibraltar—as does the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome—who have no direct voice in this matter. It is therefore important for us, albeit vicariously, to do our best to try to get to the bottom of it.

Frank Cook: That was a very long intervention.

William Cash: I was indeed. I am sorry.

Frank Cook: I must appeal to all hon. Members, but especially to the hon. Gentleman, to curtail their interventions.

Yvette Cooper: We have an outline of the matters that we would expect Gibraltar to deal with and those that we would expect to be dealt with in the UK courts. We have already discussed that with the Government of Gibraltar. I am happy to write to hon. Members and set out further details of what we expect. I am also keen to examine the issue further to see if it is possible to clarify it any more before the primary legislation completes its passage through the House. However, I must give a word of caution: it may not be possible to do that because of the complexity of election legislation, election rules and so on. It would be deeply unfortunate if we found later that one particularly complicated aspect of the law meant that the matter could not be dealt with in the Gibraltar courts and needed to be dealt with in the UK courts, but that we had not set up a power to enable us to act in that way. That could cause difficulties, given the timetable of the 2004 elections. We need to be aware of the possibility that I have outlined.
 It is always possible to draw up lists, but it is always difficult with electoral legislation, in my experience, to be confident that a list is comprehensive. That is why the clause is drawn relatively broadly at this stage. However, as I have said, I am happy to share with hon. Members more information about the detail of our intentions. We expect further discussions with Gibraltar about the matter, and to clarify and refine it. More work is needed to reach a clear view of the way in which the jurisdiction would be divided, and the regulations drawn up. 
 For the reasons I have given, I ask that the amendment be withdrawn.

David Heath: The Minister's answer has been extremely helpful, and it covered a lot of ground on questions that I was concerned about. I hope that she will examine the clause again, because it is rather clumsily worded. It gives the strong impression that no jurisdiction is to be conferred on Gibraltar; the fact that Gibraltar is not mentioned in proposed new paragraph (b), which is the permissive paragraph, but that Gibraltar alone is mentioned in proposed new paragraph (c), which is the exclusive one, is bound to cause misapprehensions.
 I agree with the Minister that it may be very difficult to draft primary legislation that covers all the eventualities in the way that she suggested. It would certainly be helpful to me, and, I suspect, to other hon. Members, to be able to see what the Government intend, subject to their further deliberations with the Government of Gibraltar. However, on the basis of what the Minister has said, I have no intention of pressing my amendment.

William Cash: In the light of all that has been said, it seems to me that there is a way to deal with the matter, certainly with some discussion. There is no question of the people of Gibraltar expecting to drive the whole
 jurisdiction relating to elections relevant to the combined region as a whole. That is the key point. On the other hand, they do not want anything to happen to the detriment of their jurisdiction in Gibraltar, on genuinely Gibraltarian matters. There is a balance, and the Minister has given us enough information to persuade us that the matter is being taken seriously, that discussions will continue, and that at some point the drafting will reflect that, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 21 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 22 - Financial provisions

William Cash: I beg to move amendment No. 68, in
clause 22, page 11, line 16, leave out subsection (3).
 This relates to the public funds of Gibraltar. There are bound to be financial provisions in a Bill of this kind that should be marked in italics, having regard to the constitutional position vis-à-vis the House of Lords. Such matters are more properly and effectively dealt with by the House of Commons. The provisions that are listed in subsections (1) and (2) are set in italics. In subsection (3), which is where Gibraltar comes into the equation, matters that pertain to the United Kingdom exclusively are italicised but those that pertain exclusively to Gibraltar are not. I am sure that the Minister will have a note to explain why that should be so. 
 Let me put forward one or two thoughts on the matter as I read it myself. Subsection (4) states: 
''Subsection (3) applies to—
(a) an order under section 11;
(b) regulations under section 16; and
(c) regulations under section 7 of the 2002 Act.''
 We have been through those extensively. We certainly do not need to repeat them. They are broad and they have a lot of adverse implications in the context I have already explained. Where the subordinate legislation would bite in respect of the Consolidated Fund in relation to the United Kingdom as a whole, in other words where it would affect this Parliament, I would have no specific point to make. I may reflect on that, but I do not doubt that a proper provision would need to be made in order to ensure that the money that was found related to that part of the Bill that affects the United Kingdom directly. 
 The problem is that where the Bill deals with the deployment of the public funds of Gibraltar, the UK legislative statutory instrument that would be employed under subsection (3) would require the use of money that is the public funds of Gibraltar. That is rather curious to say the least. The public funds of Gibraltar are deployed and deployable under and in respect of the financial arrangements within the House of Assembly. It does not come back to this Parliament to determine how and where it will spend its money. The Bill seems to be making provisions that are constitutionally unexpected and unreasonable because 
 they impinge on deployment of the Gibraltar public funds. 
 As I understand it, no United Kingdom statutory instrument, order or other legal provision has purported to deploy or commit Gibraltar public funds since decades before Gibraltar acquired its first modern constitution in 1964. We are talking about something that goes back an extremely long way. That is a reflection of our deep concern that, in order to deal with the hybrid situation of a combined region, powers are being taken that invade the constitutional propriety of Gibraltar in an unnecessary fashion. 
 The Minister has raised the question of proportionality on a number of occasions. For example, when discussing the name of the combined region, she mentioned size and we discussed the question of proportionality and why the words ''and Gibraltar'' would be conveniently put after the name of the electoral region, which has yet to be decided upon. I do not know the exact number of people in each of the regions—it will vary, because there is no fixed number. However, when considering the relatively small number of people in Gibraltar, I ask myself how much money will be charged to the Consolidated Fund for Gibraltar in proportion to the combined region as a whole; I am thinking of taxation and the amount of money that would need to be found for the Gibraltar end of the equation. 
 We require a clear explanation of that. It seems to me that a case can be made the Gibraltarians not having to pay any money out of the consolidated fund of Gibraltar. I have said what I need to say for the moment, and I would be interested to hear what the Minister has to say in reply.

David Heath: First, it is clear that any electoral process has its costs and those costs must be met. The provisions of clause 22 are a necessary part of the Bill. Secondly, I do not entirely agree with the hon. Member for Stone that Gibraltar should be excluded from the responsibility of paying for the electoral arrangements within Gibraltar—any more, for instance, than Frome, which is of a comparable size, should be excluded for making the necessary electoral arrangements for my election. The same applies to the MEP. We are not excluded, and it is not immediately apparent why Gibraltar should be.
 The hon. Gentleman is right to ask whether Parliament has the power to make an order that draws on the Consolidated fund for Gibraltar via a statutory instrument. We have primary legislation due to the constitutional position, but I am not sure that it is not an ultra vires power. I would certainly be much happier if the provisions for financing the electoral arrangements, as between Gibraltar and the rest of the combined region within which Gibraltar falls, were dependent on conformity of approach; and it should be for the House of Assembly of Gibraltar to bring forward the moneys and the regulation that brings it into effect. It is clearly a devolved matter, not a matter reserved to Parliament and the Government through statutory instrument. I have some unhappiness with the way in which the budget of Gibraltar is pre-empted 
 by regulation from the House in this instance. The Minister might explain that more fully to the Committee.

Yvette Cooper: Clause 21(3) provides the powers to make detailed arrangements regarding the financial authorisation set out in subsections (1) and (2) and by the words in italics in subsection (3). The provisions in italics were the subject of the money resolution. By agreeing to subsections (1) and (2) and the words in italics in subsection (3) in that resolution, Parliament has given its authority in principle for the expenditure of those funds.
 I shall set out the Government's intention in that regard and then explain why clause 22(3) has been so drafted. Clearly, elections cost money. The expenses of the local returning officer and the registration officer for Gibraltar must be met. It is our intention that that should be achieved in the same way as it is achieved in the United Kingdom. In European elections, the returning officer's expenses—the bulk of the expenditure for an election—should be met by the UK Consolidated Fund. In other words, the UK Government will pay for the returning officer in Gibraltar, as it pays for the returning officer in the UK. The registration officer's expenses, however, are met locally.

William Cash: Although that is understandable, does the Minister agree that, in principle, legislation should be passed in Gibraltar to deal with that situation, rather than being dealt with by a statutory instrument in this Parliament?

Yvette Cooper: The orders under the Bill and the regulations relating to European parliamentary elections will need to set out how these matters should be dealt with as a consequence of Gibraltarians being included in the European parliamentary elections. I am sympathetic to considering what legislation could be passed in Gibraltar. As I have made clear earlier, we are keen for as many of the legislative provisions as possible to be dealt with in Gibraltar by the House of Assembly. However, we need to be sure that the money can be spent. That may mean that it is appropriate for money to be paid into the Consolidated Fund of Gibraltar and then spent on the local returning officer. That is why the Bill allows for money to be paid and expenditure to be met by a Minister of the Crown, and for a sum to be paid into the Consolidated Fund or the Consolidated Fund for Gibraltar, but also for sums to be paid out of the Consolidated Fund for Gibraltar. The wording in the Bill provides the flexibility to put the arrangements into practice.
 I am happy for as much as possible to be done locally. Clearly, we need to discuss further with the Government of Gibraltar how that can be done. The Bill provides for limited powers in connection with the European parliamentary elections. It will not apply to anything else. We are talking only about the expenses of returning officers and registration officers. The provisions are limited in scope, but they are drafted in such a way as to ensure that, in practice, the money gets to the right place.

David Heath: So that we can be absolutely clear, let us imagine a hypothetical and extraordinarily unlikely position. Let us suppose that a statutory instrument were made that required the making of payments from the Consolidated Fund of Gibraltar, and the Government and House of Assembly of Gibraltar declined to make those payments. What would the constitutional position be? Would a Minister here, on the basis of this proposed legislation, be able to insist on the payment being made?

Yvette Cooper: That would depend entirely on the way in which the powers were applied. We have not put any such detail in the Bill because such matters will depend on discussions with the Government of Gibraltar about the best way to effect the provision. Nothing in the Bill sets out how we would respond to the situation that the hon. Gentleman has described, or even whether there would be such financial arrangements in the first place.
 Clearly, we do not anticipate such a situation. The Government of Gibraltar, in all discussions, have been keen to ensure that their people can vote in the European parliamentary elections. Obviously, to meet our obligations, we need to ensure that the people of Gibraltar can vote, and financial arrangements and provisions will need to reflect that. However, it is not possible to answer the hon. Gentleman's hypothetical question without further discussions with the Government of Gibraltar on the best arrangements for ensuring that the money gets to the right place.

David Heath: I am sorry to intervene again, but that is the whole point. The Minister says that the point of the provision is to ensure that the money gets to the right place. I am asking whether, in the event of a conclusion not being reached, a Minister of the Crown here would have the power to draw money down from the Consolidated Fund of Gibraltar, for example, in the case of a dispute. She says that she is not sure of the answer, which raises the question of what the provision is for. Clearly, what is needed is an agreement between the Government of Gibraltar and the British Government. There is not a scintilla of doubt in my mind that that will be reached easily, but the question in principle is whether, under a Bill passed by this Parliament, money can be taken from the Consolidated Fund of Gibraltar without a change in the constitutional arrangements.

Yvette Cooper: As I have said, that would depend on the way in which the powers were set out and what regulations or orders were made under the clause. If a statutory instrument were made that required payments from the Government of Gibraltar's Consolidated Fund, and those payments were not made, that would be unlawful. The outcome would depend on what was set out in the statutory instrument but we have not, at this stage, drawn up any such statutory instrument. We have not discussed that further, as we will need to, with the Government of Gibraltar.
 The hon. Gentleman is completely right to say that the provision will depend on agreement to make things happen in practice. We have set out the principles relatively clearly, stating that the same arrangements should apply as those that apply across the rest of the 
 United Kingdom, with a similar balance between local expenditure and expenditure by the UK Government. We need simply to ensure that there is enough flexibility to put the financial arrangements into place in practice. 
 On that basis, and given that without subsection (3) we would find it difficult to put any of the financial arrangements into practice, such as ensuring that we can pay for Gibraltar's returning officer, I ask the hon. Member for Stone to withdraw the amendment.

David Heath: I am grateful to the Minister. I understand that her conclusion is that if the House of Commons passes a statutory instrument requiring payment from the Consolidated Fund of Gibraltar, and if the Government of Gibraltar did not make that money available, they would be acting unlawfully. In other words, the financial devolution implicit in the constitutional arrangements for Gibraltar is subject either to primary or secondary legislation in this House, and Gibraltar would not be in a different position from, for example, a local authority in the United Kingdom if it acted outwith the provisions of a statutory instrument passed by this House. That is what the Minister has given me to understand.
 As I have said, that is an entirely hypothetical situation. I do not see any practical difficulties with the provision, but it is helpful to know that the colonial ties that bind us to Gibraltar are as strong as ever and that there is no doubt that the House of Assembly and the Government of Gibraltar do not have an inherent power to use the Consolidated Fund of Gibraltar as they wish. They are always subject to the fiat of a Minister of the Crown in the United Kingdom supported by a parliamentary instrument.

William Cash: I am not so convinced that that situation is entirely hypothetical. Apart from anything else, we do not actually know whether the disagreements that could arise would result in a court having to adjudicate. That is an uncertainty rather than a hypothesis.
 One thing is certain: the Minister has said, without mentioning any timing, that certain discussions have taken place on these matters between the Government of Gibraltar and, I assume, the Lord Chancellor's Department. It is quite clear that the principles that arose from those discussions have led to concerns about the matter and not managed to assuage the concerns of the Government of Gibraltar. That is a matter of fact, otherwise I would not have put forward my points on it today. 
 Despite the Minister's attempts to dispel concern with principle and constitutionality, that absence of concern is not, I am afraid, shared by those with whom I have discussed the matter in Gibraltar. They have not raised concerns because of a hypothesis, nor just to be difficult, but because a genuine issue of principle lies at the heart of the matter. I have heard the Minister's comments and I invite her to write to me—and perhaps also to the Chief Minister of Gibraltar—explaining how the provision is supposed to work, in 
 the hope that that will add something to the discussions that have already taken place, to which I was not a party and the contents of which I am not aware. 
 It might then become clear that the problems in the circumstances that have been referred to can be overcome, but at the moment it is not for me to stand here and say that the people to whom I have spoken are wrong. As the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome has pointed out, and as I have said, matters of constitutional principle are involved. There is a question of why the problems here were not resolved at an earlier stage than this Committee. For example, they were certainly not raised on Second Reading. If we can be provided with further explanations, perhaps we can return to the matter on Report. 
 I have, then, certain caveats. I made the same point about returning to the subject on Report under the previous amendment, because a similar principle applied there: how far discussions have managed to elucidate the issues lying between the Government of Gibraltar and the Government of the United Kingdom.

Yvette Cooper: Just to clarify that point for the hon. Gentleman, we certainly expect to have extensive discussions on the financial aspects. They have not been discussed in any detail with the Government of Gibraltar at this stage. Considerable discussions need to take place on money issues.

William Cash: I am extremely glad to hear that. I do not want to try to trip the Minister up, but, as she was putting the arguments to the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome, she referred to discussions. I know that discussions in general have been taking place, but the key question in relation to the amendment relates to the financial questions—the Consolidated Fund of Gibraltar and so on. However, we have been through all that.
 I conclude by saying that I am prepared to withdraw the amendment, with the strongest reservation that constitutional issues are involved. I have been given an indication by the Minister that these matters have been under discussion. Even if we were to press the amendment to a Division, we would not win in the Committee, but there are issues that we may need to return to and, I sense, will return to on Report. With those strong reservations, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 22 ordered to stand part of the Bill

William Cash: On a point of order, Mr. Cook. I want to be clear. The note on the selection list indicates that we have already had a stand part debate on clause 23. In other words, there is no need for discussion because we have had it already.

Frank Cook: I assure the hon. Gentleman that we discussed it ad nauseam.

William Cash: I hope not.
 Clauses 23 and 24 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 25 - Short title, extent and commencement

William Cash: I beg to move amendment No.69, in
clause 25, page 12, line 5, leave out from 'Act' to end of line 7 and insert 
 'and shall come into force in Gibraltar on such day as the Secretary of State, following consultation with the Chief Minister of Gibraltar, may appoint by order made by statutory instrument.'.

Frank Cook: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No.70, in
clause 25, page 12, line 8, leave out subsection (4) and insert— 
 (4) Sections 10 to 21 shall come into force on such day as the Secretary of State, following consultation with the Chief Minister of Gibraltar, may appoint by order made by statutory instrument.'.

William Cash: The amendments deal with the day on which the Bill will come into effect. Amendment No. 69 would delete the words after
''the passing of this Act''
 in subsection 3 and insert: 
''and shall come into force in Gibraltar on such day as the Secretary of State''—
 we have come to accept that in this context it will again be the Lord Chancellor— 
''following consultation with the Chief Minister of Gibraltar, may appoint by order made by statutory instrument.''
 That would reverse the manner in which the commencement operates at present, because the Bill says that part 1, sections 8 and 9 and part 3 shall 
''come into force in each part of the United Kingdom on the passing of this Act but shall not come into force in Gibraltar until such day as the Lord Chancellor may appoint by . . . statutory instrument.''
 It seems extraordinary that the Bill does not provide for consultation with the Chief Minister of Gibraltar about the date on which commencement in respect of Gibraltar would take place. Furthermore, it seems more appropriate that the wording should be in the positive and say that the Bill will come into force following that consultation on the day appointed by order made by statutory instrument. 
 Clause 25(4) states: 
''Sections 10 to 21 shall not come into force . . . until such day as the Lord Chancellor may appoint by order made by statutory instrument.''
 Amendment No. 70 would reverse that language by stating that those sections 
''shall come into force on such day as''
 the Lord Chancellor, 
''following consultation with the Chief Minister of Gibraltar,''—
 for very several sensible reasons— 
''may appoint by order made by statutory instrument.''
 As I have frequently said, the difficulties with the Bill tend to gravitate around the absence of proper consultation with the Chief Minister of the Government of Gibraltar. That probably reflects a deeper malaise with respect to this Government's attitude towards the Bill, about which they were not enthusiastic and into which they have been pushed. The difficulties depend on our relationship with Spain, and the Government are inherently reluctant to be 
 positive about the consultative process, which is a reprehensible, unnecessary and avoidable attitude.

Yvette Cooper: Various parts of the Bill will come into force at different times. Clauses 8 and 9 will need to be in force on Royal Assent to allow the Electoral Commission to begin its consideration of which region Gibraltar should form a part. Other parts of the Bill will be commenced early, within two months of Royal Assent, to allow progress to be made on preparing secondary legislation. The timetable is tight and complicated, and it would be extremely unusual to make the use of the commencement order subject to consultation. Given the circumstances, consultation would be an unwarranted step, which would affect the timetable. If we miss the timetable, we will run the risk of not being ready for the 2004 elections.
 I do not disagree with the amendment's principle. It is clearly right that we should work with the Government of Gibraltar on both the content and the timing of secondary legislation. Indeed, we will have to do so given that we are keen that some of the follow-on legislation should be enacted in Gibraltar. We need to ensure that, particularly where secondary legislation in this place and further legislation in Gibraltar need to be aligned, the timing is taken very seriously, and we will have to take the Government of Gibraltar's position on the commencement of the provisions into account. 
 As we are drawing to the end of the consideration of the issues in Committee, I want to make it clear that the Government are keen to look at what more might be done to clarify on the face of the Bill what role Gibraltar can play in passing further secondary legislation. I should caution the Committee that it is not clear how rapidly we will be able to do that, and, although I will be able to report on the matter on Report, it is not clear how long it will take, whether further amendments will need to be drawn up and how far we will have got. Although we will clearly be acting as speedily as possible in order to ensure full consultation with the Government of Gibraltar, the process may take a little more time. 
 The hon. Member for Stone and, on occasion, the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome have taken great delight wherever possible in trying to minimise the amount of consultation that has taken place, and have created all sorts of colonial references, which is a little rich coming from the hon. Member for Stone. 
 We should be clear. A series of discussions has taken place with the Government of Gibraltar. It is an unusual situation that we are in—it does not apply to many other areas—in order to ensure that the people of Gibraltar are enfranchised in the European parliamentary elections. The purpose of the Bill is to ensure that the people of Gibraltar should get a democratic vote in the European parliamentary elections. That is why the Bill is so important, and where possible it should draw support from both sides of the House of Commons.

William Cash: Again, I find some contradiction in what the Minister says. She says that to make my suggested changes, which amount to saying that there should be
 consultation with the Chief Minister, would be unwarranted. She then says that she agrees with consultation in principle. We are all experienced at legislating in this Parliament. It does not take much to acknowledge that if there is a reason for doing something and it does not contradict the general tenor of the Bill, it would be convenient to do it. We are not asking for some monumental constitutional change. We are just saying that it is advisable and necessary to ensure that the words ''in consultation with the Chief Minister'' are included in the Bill.
 It defies belief that for some arcane reason that has not been explained—other than for the Minister to say that she agrees in principle with consultation—the measure cannot be included. She makes a slighting reference to my question about the colonial attitude that lies behind so much of the Bill. Nothing could be more colonial than to say that the Government are not prepared to include a provision to consult the Chief Minister on the date of commencement. 
 We have discussed what consultation means. The Minister agreed with the parameters of consultation that I have proposed—that is that we should have due regard to the views of the person, and give reasons. That is not an exceptional proposition; it is rather fundamental. It demonstrates why there has been such an enormous, valid disagreement with those in Gibraltar, including the Chief Minister, who has acted with integrity, honour and distinction throughout the saga of the Brussels process during an extended period. It is clear that a less colonial and imperialistic approach to the issue would have reduced the amount of difficulty that has arisen in the higher echelons of the diplomatic affairs of Britain, Spain and Gibraltar, and the European Union for that matter. 
 I was rather amused to hear the Minister to say that it was a bit rich for me to go on about colonialism, given my interest in matters related to Africa, which I know that you share, Mr. Cook. I have chaired various all-party committees for many years, which shows my concern that we should move away from colonialism and be much more responsive to the wishes of the indigenous peoples of particular territories.

Andrew Rosindell: I agree with my hon. Friend. Does he agree that there can be no clearer example of the Government's demonstrating a colonial and imperialist attitude than the recent negotiations on joint sovereignty with Spain, over and above the heads of the people of Gibraltar?

Frank Cook: Order. I ask every member of the Committee to stick to rather than add to the points that we are required to scrutinise.

William Cash: My hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mr. Rosindell) makes his own point.
 Consultation is part and parcel of good relations, and good relations are improved if there is some give and take. In the context of the Bill, there is much more take than give. The Government were driven to introduce the Bill and are acting in a de minimis fashion. 
 The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome provided us with an insight into the comprehensive arguments that have been advanced by the Liberal Democrat party on the matter. As it happens, there is much symmetry between their approach and the fundamental points that we have put forward, although we did not discuss the issues before we tabled our amendments. It is an extraordinary and satisfactory coincidence that we have ended up with similar approaches to all the fundamental points. We can now leave the Committee, with your leave, Mr. Cook, with the knowledge that we have had full analysis of the Bill, and that we will have a useful and constructive dialogue before Report and discussions on Report that will further elucidate and improve the Bill.

Frank Cook: I must say that that was a fairly comprehensive stand part speech without any comment on what to do with the amendment.

William Cash: Indeed, Mr. Cook. In the circumstances, I am happy to beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

David Heath: If I may rise on the last clause under debate, I wish only to express my thanks to you, Mr. Cook, and your co-Chairman. I also thank the Minister for carefully considering our points. However, there are still serious matters to debate on Report. Many of the replies that the Minister gave are conditional on further amendments and consideration and on dialogue with the Government of Gibraltar. That will very much colour the attitude of my colleagues on Report and, indeed, when the Bill goes to another place for discussion. For speed and expediency, it would be helpful if some of the comments that were made in this Committee were listened to and acted on at subsequent stages of the Bill.

William Cash: I thank you, Mr. Cook—

Frank Cook: We have not finished yet.

William Cash: In that case, I shall be happy to wait.

Yvette Cooper: On a point of order, Mr. Cook. I want to thank you—

Frank Cook: Order. We are in the middle of dealing with the clause.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 25 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Question proposed, That the Chairman do report the Bill to the House.

Yvette Cooper: I thank you, Mr. Cook, and your co-Chairman, Mr. Taylor, as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East (Dr. Kumar), who took the Chair briefly, for guiding us admirably and efficiently. Thank you for dealing with perambulation, wherever it arose, and for helping to ensure that we had an in-depth and generally constructive debate on the issues in this important Bill.
 I thank my hon. Friends for their support and patience throughout our sittings and all members of the Committee for their informed contributions. I also thank the Clerk and other Officers of the House for supporting the Committee.

William Cash: I concur with the thanks to you, Mr. Cook, for chairing the Committee. I also thank the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome for the constructive way in which we have been able to discuss the Bill. I cannot claim to have been entirely satisfied with the Minister's responses and I shall not over-indulge my congratulations to Labour Members
 for their massive contribution of silence to our proceedings.
 I am pleased to add my thanks to your colleagues, Mr. Cook, who took the Chair from time to time. I also thank my hon. Friends who have been with me throughout these proceedings. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Bill to be reported, without amendment. 
 Committee rose at eighteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.